Republic of the Philippines

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 90

Dasmarinas City, Cavite

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff,
-Versus-

Criminal Case No.00-12773-13 &12774-13

FOR : QUALIFIED THEFT

EMELITA C. MAGRACIA,
HERMENLYN D. MONTOYA,
ELSA BULAHAN VALLAR,
DELMA GATOC,
JEFFERSON FERRER TIAUZON,
NOLLY BOY HALIM,
ANITA CASTILLO,
LUZ SIPAGAN,
ANNIE ARIOLA &
TESS LIMPIN,
Accused
x------------------------x

MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION

Comes now accused Luz Sipagan, Anita Castillo, Jonalyn
Sonio and Annie Aroila by the undersigned counsel and unto this
Honorable Court respectfully submits:
1. That from the facts presented by the private complainant
including the resolution prepared and released by the
Honorable City Prosecutor of Dasmarinas, Cavite, the accused
herein move for the quashal of the information on the ground
that:
That the facts charged do not constitute an offense.
2. That accused submits that a complaint or information must
state every single fact necessary to constitute the offense
charged. From the legal and factual assessment of the facts
presented the essential elements of the offense as alleged and
as defined by law was not sufficiently shown. That given those
circumstance, it is but only proper that at this stage the
prosecution should be shut off lead the Honorable Court will

only be burdened by baseless accusation not worthy of a fuller

examination.
3. The private complainant in his complaint affidavit accuses the
accused in this case for Syndicated Estafa for allegedly
performing fraudulent acts and misappropriated Corporate
Funds in the amount of P 2,983,779.55 to the damage and
prejudiced of the corporation and its stockholder. Meanwhile
based on the complaint affidavit filed by the office of the City
Prosecutor, accused herein were indicted for qualified theft, an
offense that is way different or in contrast to the offense
charged.
4. That earlier, accused here in have filed a motion for judicial
determination of probable cause precisely to impress upon the
Honorable Court that no probable cause exist to warrant the
prosecution of the accused for any offense. The complaint
affidavit and the resolution clearly shows that the liability of the
accused assuming without admitting that they have, are merely
civil and not criminal. The facts only show that accused merely
failed to remit certain sum of money which the accused
disputes. Misappropriation or intent to gain was a mere
conclusion of law unsupported by facts. Thus if no facts were
shown to constitute estafa or theft, necessarily there would be
no legal basis of institute any criminal information. When it is
clear that the information does not really charged an offense,
the case against the accused must be dropped immediately
instead of subjecting him to anxiety and inconvenience of a
useless trial. The accused is entitle to such consideration and
indeed, even the prosecution will benefit from such dismissal
because it can then filed a corrected information provided the
accused has not yet attached. There is no point of proceeding
under a defective information that can never be the basis of a
valid conviction. (Cruz vs Court of Appeals G.N. No. 93754
February 18, 1991.)
5. Significantly, all the accused herein were sales agents of private
complainant and for them to be charged of qualified theft is
really questionable. The elements of qualified theft punishable
under Article 310 in selection to Article 308 and 309 of the
Revised Penal Code are as follows.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

There was taking of personal property.

That said property belongs to another.
That the taking was done without the consent of the owner.
That the taking was done with intent to gain
That the taking was accomplished without violence or
intimidation against person or force upon things.

6. That the taking was done under any of the circumstances

enumerated in Art. 310 RPC with grave abuse of confidence (
Mafudo v Pp G.R. No. 179061 July 13, 2009)

6. That with due respect, as accused were sales agents do not

occupy position of confidence. There are not employees whom
fraud is reposed. The crime of qualified theft entails that the
accused should have committed if with grave abuse of
confidence. The crime of estafa which they were originally
charged is likewise benefit of legal basis sense there is no
showing that they employ deceit. Precisely, they filed a motion
for judicial determination of probable cause, there being no
indictable offense committed.
7. All told, the accused herein respectfully submits that since the
facts accrued by the complainants do not at all show criminal
liability and the resolution of the City prosecutor taking its
whole context does not admit that the crime of qualified theft
was committed. If is therefore but imperative that the
information be quash not only for lack of probable cause but
clearly the facts as shown does not constitute an offense.
Wherefore, it is most respectfully beseeched of this
Honorable Court that the above arguments be considered
and the case dismissed since the facts charged do not
constitute an offense.
Respectfully Submitted,

Luz Sipagan
Accused

Jonalyn Sonio
Accused

Anita Castillo
Accused

Annie Aroila
Accused

Copy furnished;

Hon. Emmanuel S. Rivera

Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, Imus, Cavite

Apolinar S. Caparal

Vempauljor Corp, KM 29, Aguinaldo Hi-way,

Salitran 2, Dasmarinas City, Cavite